Is volunteering for the military potentially unethical?

[LuckyR]

An opinion, unencumbered by data. But let's stipulate your opinion as fact just to make it interesting. Does a stockbroker going for a job interview "think much about the morality of" insider trading they may be asked to do at their new firm? Maybe yes, maybe no, same as your comment. Regardless, should there be a stock market at all? I believe most would agree that #1 there should be a stock market and #2 it would be the most naive potential stockbroker who hasn't heard of insider trading, just as it would be the unusual potential soldier who hasn't heard of Vietnam or Iraq.

Right, but my sense is that most people who go into the military like the idea of regimentation and being part of something bigger than themselves, part of a big, tough, powerful, important organization. Plus a lot of them may not have very good job prospects outside, and the idea of a career there appeals to them. There's something glamorous about the uniform and tradition. And I suspect that most volunteers aren't convinced that those wars were a terrible idea.

Exactly my point, good on you! By having a volunteer force, those who have moral/ethical problems along the lines of the OP, will not volunteer, thus it is a self correcting system, in that only those who agree with the idea of either 1) the responsibility lieing at a higher level along the chain of command or 2) they are not personally very troubled about moral/ethical wrongdoing much at all. In either case: little to no moral dilemma.

-- Updated September 6th, 2015, 10:51 am to add the following --

As I posted earlier an all volunteer armed force makes the most sense. If the citizenry feel that their government is acting ethically the citizens will volunteer and the army will be replete. If the government cannot "sell" the idea of a war to the citizens, then they army will be short soldiers and be less effective. It is really a perfect design. Those who are uncomfortable with the "ethics" don't volunteer, problem solved.

Is one possibility that the government will 'sell' joining up to those in society most inclined towards militarism and the use of violence to solve problems thus potentially creating a military, which far from being representative of the majority of the population, is not just willing but eager to carry out what the majority regard as unethical activities.

Again, thanks for making my point for me, same answer as above.

[Mark1955]

(Nested quote removed.)

Is one possibility that the government will 'sell' joining up to those in society most inclined towards militarism and the use of violence to solve problems thus potentially creating a military, which far from being representative of the majority of the population, is not just willing but eager to carry out what the majority regard as unethical activities.

Again, thanks for making my point for me, same answer as above.

So you're happy to live in a state that has unethical armed forces as long as you can say 'It wasn't me' after the holocaust?

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


Again, thanks for making my point for me, same answer as above.

So you're happy to live in a state that has unethical armed forces as long as you can say 'It wasn't me' after the holocaust?

Dude, you need to make a decision, either the responsibility lies with the politicians making the decision or the military in carrying it out (personally I say the former), you can't play both sides of the issue, that's disingenuous. If you agree with me, then by your own definition, the armed forces (meaning the soldiers volunteering, not the Joint Chiefs) are NOT unethical, the politicians are.

[Mark1955]

So you're happy to live in a state that has unethical armed forces as long as you can say 'It wasn't me' after the holocaust?

Dude, you need to make a decision, either the responsibility lies with the politicians making the decision or the military in carrying it out (personally I say the former), you can't play both sides of the issue, that's disingenuous. If you agree with me, then by your own definition, the armed forces (meaning the soldiers volunteering, not the Joint Chiefs) are NOT unethical, the politicians are.

Well you're off to Nuremberg then, the law is quite clear, both the politicians and the military at all levels are responsible. It's not for me to agree or disagree with this as with any other law, I just need to know the rules and keep my nose clean.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)

Dude, you need to make a decision, either the responsibility lies with the politicians making the decision or the military in carrying it out (personally I say the former), you can't play both sides of the issue, that's disingenuous. If you agree with me, then by your own definition, the armed forces (meaning the soldiers volunteering, not the Joint Chiefs) are NOT unethical, the politicians are.

Well you're off to Nuremberg then, the law is quite clear, both the politicians and the military at all levels are responsible. It's not for me to agree or disagree with this as with any other law, I just need to know the rules and keep my nose clean.

Your commentary would make sense if there was ever a single episode of an enlisted man being prosecuted for invading a country for example. This is the province of politicians and the leadership of the military. Enlisted soldiers are only prosecuted for atrocities and the like, which I agree is completely correct.

If a law has never been used in a court, it really isn't much of a law.

[Supine]

The assumption though is that, once you are in the army, you have to follow orders, regardless weather you agree with the ethical nature of the orders or not.

In a sense you suspended your own personal morality and placed it into the hands of people all over on the chain of command: from your immediate superior in the army to the president and the congress itself.

I can't speak for every military in the world but in the US military you are forbidden from following immoral orders. And if you do so you may be brought up on charges and possibly sentenced to military/federal prison.

My question to those who volunteered to the army is the following:

How can you live with this exposure of having to perform potentially evil and unethical duties, just because you suspended your right to protest?

I think that dilemma arises if a person actually believe x, y, z are evil or unethical and that orders for carrying out x, y, z are likely to occur.

Did you ever have an instant when you regretted joining the army that forced you to do things you would have never done by your own volition (like firing white phosphorus shells at civilians - including children - in Fellujah)?

From Wikipedia: Quote:On November 15, 2005, Dept. of Defense spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable confirmed to the BBC that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary antipersonnel weapon in Fallujah

I regretted joining the US Marines for other reasons. But not for any of that.

I've regretted being part of the greater military deployment that slaughtered so many Iraqi lives during the First Gulf War. But that particular regret only occurred after I left the military and upon some reflection.

I think the USA joined in an international agreement to ban the use of white phosphorus in combat/war. So, any use of it is at minimum illegal or a violation to whatever promise the USA made to not using them. Is use of white phosphorus inherently unethical though? I don't know. I'm kind of tilting on the side that it is.

In general I have a big problem with the killing of children period.

Now, even if the US military had notified residence to flee the city before they attacked, I still have a problem with children that remained behind--even if they operated as combatants--being killed, let alone through the nightmarish use of white phosphorus bombs.

[Mark1955]

Is use of white phosphorus inherently unethical though? I don't know. I'm kind of tilting on the side that it is.

Very topical issue at present that 25 years ago was a non subject. I was issued two types of WP ammunition, smoke grenades and a WP filled armour piercing round designed to be used against enemy vehicles, get inside with the AP then the exploding WP either burns the crew or sets the vehicle alight. Since being in an armoured vehicle in war is a significant burn risk for many reasons and smoke grenades aren't fired at people just in the air I have no morale objection to either. Today however it appears some people are using the WP 'smoke' round as an offensive incendiary weapon against target areas that may included non combatants. With that I have an issue, although largely this issue is with using any area weapon in the presence of non combatants. So as is often the case to me it's not the weapon it's the context of it's use.